Is France's 'Germany-Containment' Strategy At Risk?

In a little under two minutes, Stratfor provides a succinct primer on 'France'. Its natural (ocean, river, and mountain) geographic 'barrier' borders, its major agricultural industry, and significant social cohesion. But, there is one weakness - the North European Plain - which remains France's main challenge - safe-guarding its north-European border, on the path of a historic invasion route. The most critical existential threat to France has come from its Eastern neighbor Germany and after three significant wars from 1871 to 1945, France attempted to 'contain' Germany largely through economic and political union. The most recent economic and political crisis (and the growing schism between Hollande and Merkel) suggest France's containment-strategy may be in question.

The big difference is France is now a Nuclear Power. Its policy for its use is as clear as crystal: the first foreign soldier to step in France territory without authorization will trigger the use of the nuclear power against the aggressor.

Do you actually believe anyone will ever dare to invade France? If so, look at the attitude of everybody towards North Korea...

What, you expect us to defend the French from the Germans? With what army, exactly? And why would we defend the French, given that they have invaded us three(?) times while the Germans have only done it once?

Also, haven't the French heard of planes? It's been all the rage in warfare this last century... Worrying about "plains" is so pre-20th century...

France didn't have nukes last time. I imagine that any nation with nukes would most likely use them if the alternative was being overrun by a foreign juggernaut... probably why there is such hysteria over the idea of Iran becoming a nuclear power - it's a lot harder to just roll straight over someone if there's a good chance they'll nuke you for it.

nuclear weaponds do NOT give the ability to project power directly and unilaterrally. While they act as a detterant to aggression---they DO give you the power to project SOFT indirect power by funding your enemies' enemies.

Nuclear weapons are why The united states had to draw a line north of vietnam where they would not attack because they didn't want an escalation with the group funding vietnam with weapons and food---the russians.

ultimately, having nuclear weapons allows you as a country to have a firm stable footing from the END run of a full frontal assualt. with such a SHIELD in place, you have what ultimately guarantees long term stability against foreign direct aggression. Of course, other countries can fund insurgents and psyops in your country, but the attempts to foment internal revolution are never as threatening as direct warfare. Thus----in the new world we are living in. the Power of Empire and of Aggresion is going to be benchmarked against who you CANNOT afford to bomb directly---which means there is an inevitable race to build up nuclear weapons.

Iran is pursuing the bomb , everyone knows this. for israel , the fear is that once they get the bomb there will be a radical and long term escalation of lebanese attacks. because even if israel can bomb lebanon every 5 years----the iranians will just keep giving them money and weapons and nothing can be done to stop this. The bombings of lebanon will result in a permanently impoverished state of people who view israel as the enemy , thus setting the stage for a major conflagration one day with lebanon. At some point----a major conflagration must result in the full scale destruction of a City which will leave at least 10,000 to 20,000 dead. and this will be the departure point for international sanctions on israel which will begin the economic crippling of the state----without solid economic footing , the military apparatus begins to crumble.

the alternative is that Iran is prevented from getting a nuke -----until the country collapses internally or through outright warfare by the U.S. ------and a friendly regime is installed which stops providing weapons and support to hizbollah.

This seems VERY unlikely because China holds U.S. treasuries and Russia could be crazy enough to start world war iii in the face of persistent unchecked american aggression.

Iran is not really the problem here however. Nor is Israel for all you zionist Israel Haters out there. Of course, superpowers are more to blame than anyone. Blaming smaller countries makes no sense when the only powers capable of 'stopping' aggression are the bigger ones. The superpowers are the only countries that can alter conflict in any meaningful sense, if at all.

The intractable problem is that low level conflict ---inside smaller countries, and between small countries-----always exists, and by virtue of this----major superpowers will always be taking advantage of it to satisfy their own lust for power. THere is no way out of this trap, and nuclear proliferation is THE tactic defining the post wwii period.

At some point due to nuclear proliferation, a nuclear war MUST happen. lt's just hope it is of limited scope. I personally believe a nuclear engagement is most likely to happen in the least stable countries with leaders who may be able to rationalize nuclear bombing because they have such large POPULATIONS that they can 'sacrifice' people. ---not iran versus israel, and not north korea versus south korea, but most likely ---pakistan versus india.

remember a nuclear weapon of low kilotonnage is going to kill most of the people in a city with a radius of 2-3 miles. if done during the day time in a city center. you're going to kill maybe 100,000 people to 3 million people depending on the city.

pakistan has 180 million people india over a billion. I could see military planners agreeing to go forward with a strike in that situation.

Germany has no need to invade France. And while were speculating, let's not forget the last time France was invaded. England and USA sailed across a very narrow channel. Another interesting invasion was the one that defeated Napoleon. Not the much over-hyped battle of Waterloo. But the coalition led by Russia. So France has been targeted by various forces.

ha ha ha ha...too funny, perhaps they can fight each other with pea shooters.....thanks to their over reliance on the american military, europes armed forces is the most emasculated its ever been. they couldnt even finish off libya without our help...they ran out of bombs for jeeezes sake!!!!! puhlllleeeeaseeeee.............

Funny. German people didn't show any nationalism until the world cup victory. Now all of a sudden I am to believe that they have the desire to go steam rolling through Europe? This is nothing more than fear mongering. Certainly no German citizens want to go to war.

+1 and in 1870, the only "German" that was "prepared to go to war" was the Prussian Chancellor Bismark, in 1914 just simply nobody, and 1939 "it was way too early". It just leads to think how history could have been different if the Germans would ever have seriously planned to go to war against France and the UK, instead of looking suspiciously in the direction of Russia.

Which just leads me to think: who is feverishly hoping for some diversion, this time? The EuroTrashing propaganda is reaching the shrieking level. Stratfor seriously discussing France and Germany? This is more then childish and just shows no knowledge of the two countries, at all.

Build a strong military and focus on economic reforms and freedom for my people. If I couldn't get over my bullshit racism, then I would send all the Jews elsewhere, potentially sacrificing one of my overseas posessions to be their new homeland rather than giving them an excuse to adopt Nazi policies without criticism for the next hundred years.

A stong economy would have ensured their ability to destroy any invading armies. By refraining from overextending themselves in a war around the world, they would have been unassailable. No entangling alliances would have meant the US would have gone to war with Japan alone. Our strong capitalist policies might have even caused the US to become friendly to us.

Further actions taken would have included the formation of a nation-wide militia, with all adult males free to own and use any type of weapon they like, and government subsidized rifles and ammunition, and free sharpshooter training for all able bodied men and women. Next would come the slow process of trimming down the state until it was vestigial, funded by a poll tax to elect a head of state who was a mere figurehead, with excess funds going to support continued militia equipment and training.

That has to be the single dumbest thing you've ever written here. Even ignoring the fact that physical holders of PMs should not care about fiat valuation except for the purposes of purchasing, you have topped even AnAnonymous with this comment. Your prize is to EABODADIAF.

because they have to make it look like PMs are not the only life raft to financial safety for the little man, especially so pre-QE3. Remember what happened yesterday? It will be that x10000 within 2 months IMHO. Don't let ANYTHING make you sell now.

This is idiotic. Mountians and rivers are no longer defences against modern weaponry. The threat now comes from the skies. You bomb and rocket the shit out of the opposing millitary installations and the para-drop in elite units. You will never see another tank brigade assault, just like you will never see a face-off between gigantic battleships.

Also, who the hell think Germany wants to invade France? They can just buy them (if their was anything there worth buying). Much more resources East of Germany.

Financial Facism is indeed superior to the old methods of military conquest, which had the undesirable side affect of destroying many of your own assets and the other guys assets you are trying to acquire.

And with modern media manipulation, you can not only take over a country, but also convince the inhabitants to turn into lemmings.

This is idiotic. Mountians and rivers are no longer defences against modern weaponry. The threat now comes from the skies. You bomb and rocket the shit out of the opposing millitary installations and the para-drop in elite units. You will never see another tank brigade assault, just like you will never see a face-off between gigantic battleships.

Also, who the hell think Germany wants to invade France? They can just buy them (if their was anything there worth buying). Much more resources East of Germany.

Okay...help me out here. Setting up the Euro zone was Frances way of containig Germany right? Germany goes along with the idea and benefits economically. The weaker nations in th EU spend more than they should and demand a bail out from Germany. Germany demands fiscal responsabilty in return for the bail outs and all the othe EU nations give Germany the finger.....but Germany is being painted as the aggressor? Right....I'm not buying it.

'frances' angelic geography is like a woman's anatomy - are you a leg man, or are you a big tits guy,... or is it the neck-line and above that you so much cherish --- france has them all,... and as a fair maiden that she is... all's fair in love and war'

I think it's a bit soon to be talking about conventional war. The next stage of unraveling will involve lots of "face" saving political maneuvers, name calling and nationalism.

That will be followed by sabre rattling of various kinds economic and political.

Then we will have lots of misery (particulary amoung the disaffected youth) and a potentially explosive concoction for the return of violent fascism directed at minorities and other convenient scapegoats.

Then the situation becomes very dangerous.

All this collective Europe bullshit will evaporate very quickly if something is not done.

We have the risk as well, but I think Europe is a bigger tinderbox because of all the emotion and nationalism involved. All you have to do is look at football mob behavior to figure it out. Americans seem to be in a lobotomized state of indifference.

The people who deny that a nasty scenario will never repeat are well, in denial.

Nah, I think you are wrong. The people of the European countries are getting more and more united in their hatred of the banks and their political and economic elites. It are they who the people will turn at, not against eachother.

The jews, I don't hope, sincerely (their *elites* are being perceived as part of the problems tho, and the muslims hate Israël with passion, in solidarity with Palestinians, I'm therefore afraid for them)

The muslims, don't think so (they are very much integrated now in both lands and go hand in hand with the white youth, and I know what I'm talking about)

"have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest

Will the war-mongering neo-cons ever stop fighting WWII and identifying modern Germany as a Nazi power?

And when will Zero Hedge stop using the saber rattling George Friedman (Stratfor) as source material when it is a proven supporter of the banker/military complex and its investment in continuous war?

However, it may be wise to take the war-making designs of Stratfor seriously considering that Friedman is a front for the pro-war, pro-US-Empire, pro-Israel oligarchs. After all, it is Israel that decides American foreign policy and it is Stratfor that has advised Obama strategists to bomb Iran before the 2012 election as a winning re-election position.

And doesn’t someone need to help the bankers demonize Germany to keep the German taxpayers in line? Why not Stratfor?

Any higher up who questions Stratfor’s current war-mongering efforts to generate fear in the French of a German economic invasion, of course, might suffer the fate of Baroness Jenny Tonge who was forced to resign the Lib Dem whip in England’s House of Lords this year. She was reported to the police by two pro-Israel activists in the audience after telling a student group that Israel “will not go on forever,” adding, “One day, the United States of America will get sick of giving 70 billion pounds a year to Israel to support what I call America’s aircraft carrier in the Middle East—that is Israel.

“One day, the American people are going to say to the AIPAC in the USA: enough is enough.”

Friedman predicts a third world war between these two coalitions sometime around 2050. He asserts that the war will probably be started by a coordinated sneak attack against the United States and its allies by the Japanese and Turkish empires. He states that the war will be a form of limited war, and that it will be very different in its conduct than a total war, such as World War II of the 20th century. He predicts that the United States and its allies will win, that the war will last two to three years, and that it will cost somewhere around 50,000 lives. Friedman predicts after the war, the United States will enjoy a properous decade in the 2060s due to the fact that no nation could challenge it at this time and that a new alternative to energy from solar spaced based power systems would redefine the use of power and resources.

+1 Boris. In one point they are correct: the Mutual Assured Destruction principle that came with the Cold War made Total War impossible and gave us some 300+ Limited War conflicts until around 1984, the point in time where I stopped counting.

Now the big question is if we are exiting the US HyperPower Age and are going back to a new Age of Powers. In which of course Turkey would be again a regional Power.

Nevertheless, the US of A is still the HyperPower, best seen in the fact that NATO troops are in Afghanistan with the logistic help of Russia, the one Power helping it's satellite Syria and helping China and India to share-satellize Iran...

No one is questioning that in status quo US is still a super power, but Friedman's assertions of that continuing deep into 21st century are far-fetched. All his analysis is biased in that sense and manufactured to support already known conclusion, if I follow his paradygm I can see a whole bunch of black swans popping heads everywhere I turn my eyes to. First, and foremost super-power is not defeated militarily, but starved economically after it overextends itself to the point it can no longer support massive military projection and expenditures that are required to keep the empire wheels spinning. Stratfor is rather a propaganda outlet, biased and one-sided.

NATO troops are in Afghanistan with the logistic help of Russia

Correct, and I think it's called appeasement. Russians not for a second forgot that heroin production skyrocketed after NATO went there and where all this heroin is headed to, but neither they are interested in NATO leaving Afghanistan haphazardly and creating power vacuum that will be filled very quickly with Islamists. Reasons for this are pragmatic, plus they are getting paid handsomely for transit after Pakistan shut down their portion of supply routes.

I'm not in denial or anything, being french I know we have a long and bloody history with Germany, but I think I can speak for most when I say that we do not feel threatened by Germany, nor do we see them as our enemies. There is no bitterness now, that generation is mostly gone, only the politicians and old farts like to bring it up. Anyhow, none of us want a reapeat of the last four centuries of war.

Well, France has been what it is for a good amount of time, we always lose the war against the Germans to end up winning it against the German. And the Germans have still not figured out how. One of the main reason is that despite our very old quarrels with the Brits, spats from time with Americans (yet in truth we go along easier with the Americans than with the Brits, it might have to do with the fact the both countries were originally very much agrarian who knows.... ), I think that the Brits and the Americans never stood the idea of having Europe dominated by the Germans.

I am a frog too and I call tell you, it is cool, you are not going to see the French going into the Trenches, I doubt the Krauts have much appetite to anything more than living their lives quietly. The Krauts are welcome to spend holidays in France and have some fun.

Now France and Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland and the rest of Europe except UK are partners. They know all too good, that its not wise to start shooting at each other. So they are going the other way.

I predict, that within the next five years, Strasbourg in France is going to be the capital of the USE. There is no other way. Going backward is not an option anymore. And by the way who would want that in Europe except UK and US, and maybe also Russia is not so much amuzed to have to deal in the future with a politically united Europe.